That 200+ year old one that allows every Tom Dick and Harry from the US to own a gun.

Oh, and the whole mandatory car insurance; if i don't have insurance, i'll be far less likely to crash since i won't be worrying about how in the fuck i'll get the money to pay for it, allowing me to concentrate on the road.

Marriage being only between a man and a woman. Three strikes laws. Marijuana illegality, or really any law that targets users as opposed to sellers and distributors and unnecessarily clogs up the prison system.

And, while I agree with a certain degree of regulations and gun laws, I do think weapons should be more freely available in my country than they currently are. I don't believe in the "I NEED A GUN TO PROTECT MYSELF FROM CRIMINALS" logic, but I do think anyone who can demonstrate competence with a firearm and has sufficient education on gun usage and safety (same as how you need to get a license before you drive a car) should be free to own them.

The laughable hypocrisy that are narcotics laws. I can go out and, completely legally and without restriction, purchase a horribly addictive substance that has well-documented health hazards and kills thousands of people very year, or a substance that is quite literally poison and kills even more people, but aside from medication everything else is right out. Legalise it, regulate it, tax it; that definitely won't solve all the problems, but it can't be much worse than the system now.

hypovolemia:Why not establish a "drug consumption license"? If you can show that you know about the effects of the drug, then you are allowed to buy it. If not, sorry, still illegal (and I would totally include tobacco and alcohol).

Pretty much this.

Also, the insanity that are sex and pornography laws. When someone can legally have sex with someone because they are above the age-of-consent but aren't allowed to show them pornography because they are below the age for viewing it, or two people sending nude pictures to each other can be prosecuted under child pornography laws for the same reason, then someone goofed. That's not even getting into the clusterfucks surrounding age-of-consent laws in the first place, but I'm got going to go into that.

drug lawsif we make drugs legal in north america and Europe we put south america to peace.Also there should be some kind of upper limit in what a CEO may earn, preferably as a percentage of the companies average wage(excluding management)

The lack of any reform on the policy of No-Knock warrants that Police are allowed to perform. Essentially allowing police to knock down the door & enter someone's home, immediately after announcing their presence without a conventional warrant, instead acting on cause for either the "danger to those within the premises" or on the hunch that any evidence obtained would be destroyed within the time it would take for the officers to 'properly' serve a warrant.

Use of the tactic has spiked to crazy levels in the last 20-30 years, and is often exploited in cases to search a house without a warrant, in cases where a warrant would not be served ordinarily. No to mention the cases where the homeowner believed their homes were being invaded, leading to many needless deaths on both sides of the incident. Used heavily for The War on Drugs, often in cases where drugs are never found after thoroughly searching the property.

Think the law should be reviewed and changed. War on Drugs is another subject entirely, too.

Sure, it can be argued that the law is the most prevalent force in the Universe, and shapes the planetary bodies we live on, but legislation has been criticized for the lax outlook on the untold deaths caused by falls, trauma from falling objects, and allowing the formation of interstellar objects that have caused the destruction of the previous administration on Earth, the reptilian overlords, during their term in office 65 million years ago.

The information about the interactions between quantum mechanics and gravity is being withheld by the panarchy, and have left the Human administration to develop without extra funding or support, even since inception of Human authority.

Occasionally, large particles enter our atmosphere, but there is no guarantee of a retraction from the main governing body, and instead they may use a loophole withing the laws to "provide" with usable supplies (As based on conjectures from Human science communities from yet again our established developments in lieu of actual supportive information from the main governing body).

In the form of mile-wide asteroids.

You'd think that after billions of years the governing body would at least try to reform this faulty law and enforce a more 'user-friendly' fundamental?

I think gay marriage and some drugs (depending on impact) should be legalised. Also though it isn't really a law as such, I think that divorce agreements should always aim to have joint custody of the children between the parents unless one of them doesn't want the kids or is a danger to them.

Not only is that horrendously disgusting, it is against the forum rules to talk about in any way, shape or form.

I suggest you edit your post.

While I stand by my opinion, editing my post is probably a wiser course of action. Though I don't know if disagreeing with a law counts as advocating certain behavior. But, oh well, let's play it safe.

Also, I'm not advocating whatever it is I could be advocating. A law is still a law.

I know by now you've edited that out, but I feel this sentiment cannot go unchallenged. The reason that child porn exists in the first place is that there is a underground market for it. Despite the stereotype, apparently a lot of child porn is produced by criminal gangs to make money as they know twisted people will pay for it. Effectively, anyone who watches child porn is paying for little children to be raped and so are just as bad as actual child abusers and so deserve equally harsh punishment.

it's not that simple. What kind of equality are you talking about? There is no such thing as just "equality".

In terms of legal ability, there should be. A women should not get leniency over a man, nor should a white over a black, a gay over a straight, or a jew over a christian. I should be able to marry any legal age consenting human, regardless of race, creed, gender, or orientation. I should get paid for the same work as any other, male or female or other. A pipe dream sure, but I prefer fantasy.

I'm not sure if you've ever flipped through the criminal code, but nowhere in there does it say anything about whether the offender is black white, gay, mexican, girl or a sandwich, just what the offense is.

Saelune:In terms of legal ability, there should be. A women should not get leniency over a man, nor should a white over a black, a gay over a straight, or a jew over a christian. I should be able to marry any legal age consenting human, regardless of race, creed, gender, or orientation. I should get paid for the same work as any other, male or female or other. A pipe dream sure, but I prefer fantasy.

We'd have to put completely unbiased people in control of...well, everything, but especially legislature.

Unfortunately, that would mean finding said completely unbiased people first. And good luck with that. (Hell, you'd probably need completely unbiased people to find the completely unbiased people to begin with.)

Sometimes, I think the human race just needs robot overlords. Did I say overlords? I meant protectors!

I see what you did thereOT: The dam no R rating for games in australia

I know by now you've edited that out, but I feel this sentiment cannot go unchallenged.

I'm okay with that.

The reason that child porn exists in the first place is that there is a underground market for it. Despite the stereotype, apparently a lot of child porn is produced by criminal gangs to make money as they know twisted people will pay for it.

That's why I'm all for fighting the people that make and distribute child porn. It's a fight for a worthy cause and I think that a world without child porn would be a lot better.

Effectively, anyone who watches child porn is paying for little children to be raped and so are just as bad as actual child abusers and so deserve equally harsh punishment.

I can't really agree with that. I'm sure that you could find quite a bit of child porn without ever paying for it or distributing it yourself. This is the internet, after all. If you just come across it (or even if you hoard gigabytes of it), without in any way supporting the market, how exactly are you harming anyone (except possibly yourself)? I'd assume that site that host child porn don't get much money via ads, so the increase in traffic should actually hurt the market rather than support it.Though I think it's possible some child abusers upload their videos just for the kicks and for them, the number of viewers could be an incentive. But I don't think that warrants imprisoning other people. Maybe urge them to get professional help (urge because force doesn't work well for therapies), but getting arrested for possession of child porn completely destroys your life and I don't think all those people really deserve that (if they neither produce nor distribute child porn, that is).

But yeah, I can see where you are coming from, I just can't agree 100%.

And remember everyone, watching child porn is still against the law, so please don't do it.

Oh there are many, but mostly every law that is based on the idea of protecting morality and decency, for example drug prohibition, the prohibition of prostitution ( although it is legal here in Germany ), the criminalization of assisted suicide.Also feel kinda iffy about statutory rape laws, as I donīt believe its basic premise holds up in most cases.

Oh and the tax laws in Germany, they are disgustingly unfair imo thanks to progressive tax rates.

I hate that seatbelt law. I can die if I want to. And the suicide law, if someone feels THAT bad I say let them end their misery.

No prostitution, I can see where they're comming from, but there should be special centers for people with nymphomania and people who just...really can't get laid. Of course screening beforehand would be done in all cases.

I'm not so much against 'law' I am however against enforcment. There is nothing that stops a cop from chosing one person to ticket, and letting the next person off with a warning for the same thing. Really, that needs to stop, stupid traffic laws can screw right off, and let me have pot, it is fine, there is nothing wrong with it. It is better for you then alcohol, and far better then glue in a bag (which is also legal, in the realm that you can't stop someone from owning glue and a paper bag).

That's why I'm all for fighting the people that make and distribute child porn. It's a fight for a worthy cause and I think that a world without child porn would be a lot better.

Exactly, which is why we have to take on the consumers too, which I'll describe more below.

JoJoDeathunter:Effectively, anyone who watches child porn is paying for little children to be raped and so are just as bad as actual child abusers and so deserve equally harsh punishment.

I can't really agree with that. I'm sure that you could find quite a bit of child porn without ever paying for it or distributing it yourself. This is the internet, after all. If you just come across it (or even if you hoard gigabytes of it), without in any way supporting the market, how exactly are you harming anyone (except possibly yourself)? I'd assume that site that host child porn don't get much money via ads, so the increase in traffic should actually hurt the market rather than support it.Though I think it's possible some child abusers upload their videos just for the kicks and for them, the number of viewers could be an incentive. But I don't think that warrants imprisoning other people. Maybe urge them to get professional help (urge because force doesn't work well for therapies), but getting arrested for possession of child porn completely destroys your life and I don't think all those people really deserve that (if they neither produce nor distribute child porn, that is).

But yeah, I can see where you are coming from, I just can't agree 100%.

And remember everyone, watching child porn is still against the law, so please don't do it.

While I admit there is very likely to be some who don't directly support the industry, there's no way to divide the two groups of downloaders legally so both must be illegal. By keeping possession of child porn illegal hopefully a reasonable percentage of those who would otherwise download it from paying sites won't for fear of the law, so reducing the demand and thus lowering the number of children abused. Some non-supporters will get caught up in it too, but if I have to choose between either 1) a few more adults in jail or 2) a few more children being abused, then I'm evidently going to choose 1). The adults knew the consequences of their actions and took the risk, now they pay the price for that.

I'd also support a moral argument, that it's morally wrong to enjoy watching real images of young children being abused and anyone who does so is deserving of punishment. Subjective perhaps, but I happen to be very attached to children and I think society should take a strong stance against child abuse and anything promoting it.

Kwaren:I don't like the mandatory seat belt laws. It's my body, let me put it through a windshield if I want to.

Ahh good I'm not the only one out there that thinks mandatory seat belt laws are a crock. Seat belts are good, not wearing seat belts is dumb, needed to be a law, no.Other than that, marijuana is harmless. Stop making it illegal, especially when alcohol is legal. Also, legalize prostitution, people want to sell what they got, in this case their body, let them.

Not only is that horrendously disgusting, it is against the forum rules to talk about in any way, shape or form.

I suggest you edit your post.

It's horrendously disgusting in your opinion, just like in a lot of people's opinions incest is disgusting, you hypocrite.

I think the laws on all drugs should be changed. I want to have the right to my own body.

That's not hypocritical, friend. Hypocritical would be calling something disgusting and saying people shouldn't do it and then doing it.

The more you know.

Hypocritical is saying someone shouldn't do something based on the widely held belief that it's disgusting and then suggesting that someone should be able to do something regardless of the fact that it's also widely thought of as disgusting too.